Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4802 of 2017 Appellant :- Indra Bahadur Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,K.C.Pandey
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This appeal under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 11.7.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.01/ Children's Court, Mirzapur in Case Crime no. 73 of 2017, u/s 302,201 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur rejecting the bail application of the appellant (juvenile).
Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, Sri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.C. Pandey, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned order along with entire material on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer, in its report that in the event the appellant (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the appellant states that it is merely ipse dexit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the appellant is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in the impugned order is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 1.2.2017 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the appellant -juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned order have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the appellant has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the appellant is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Learned AGA and counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that even the Juvenile Board and Probation Officer after taking into account the mental condition of the appellant has observed that the appellant is to be tried as major after holding inquiry u/s 18(3) of Juvenile Justice Act. However, they could not point out anything material to the contrary.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned order passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.
The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the appellant within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the appellant would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the appellant on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The order dated 11.7.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.01/ Children's Court, Mirzapur is set-aside.
The appellant, Indra Bahadur Maurya son of Shatrughan Maurya, Resident of Atraula, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Dhirendra/